From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Jan 15 15:33:28 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAADA83CBC for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:33:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from fly.hiwaay.net (fly.hiwaay.net [216.180.54.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3273213AD for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from kabini1.local (dynamic-216-186-244-25.knology.net [216.186.244.25] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by fly.hiwaay.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/fly) with ESMTP id u0FFXKKT018835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:33:21 -0600 Subject: Re: 64 bit linux binary support References: <5696740B.5070404@hiwaay.net> <86si20mza9.fsf@gmail.com> <5697B6DE.6000706@hiwaay.net> Cc: FreeBSD Questions !!!! From: "William A. Mahaffey III" Message-ID: <56991140.7000608@hiwaay.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:38:50 -0553.75 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:33:28 -0000 On 01/15/16 05:24, Alejandro Imass wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:53 AM, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >> On 01/14/16 08:27, Alejandro Imass wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Malcolm Matalka >>> wrote: >>>> Alejandro Imass writes: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:56 AM, William A. Mahaffey III >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > [...] > >>> My response is pretty clear: Docker is pretty much like FreeBSD Jails >>> so why not use FBSD Jails (e.g. with EzJail) in the first place >>> instead of going through the trouble of getting a Linux-like jail >>> system to run on FreeBSD. And if you want/need Docker so bad then it >>> would probably be better to run on Linux to begin with. >>> > [...] > >> Hmmmm .... It's not so clear to me, but that might be a deficiency @ my end >> :-/. I would like to run 64-bit binaries compiled on/for linux boxen >> (specifically CentOS/RHEL 6) on my FreeBSD boxen, currently 3 in number, all >> various AMD64 CPUs, all running 9.3R. My question only involved docker to >> the extent that the docker wiki page alludes to apparently newly available >> (as of last summer) 64-bit linux binary support, which is what I am really >> interested in. >> > Perhaps you should look into bhyve, the FBSD Hypervisor Bhyve apparently not available for 9.3R. Virtualbox is there & works, but locks up (reserves) a fixed amount of CPU & RAM while running. It is a viable option, I was looking for something a bit 'lighter weight'. Again, my original question pertained to 64-bit linux binary support. 32-bit is there & working (linux ABI layer), I was just curious about how 64-bit was/is going. > >> I *AM* (separately) interested in docker, for various reasons. Specifically, >> I would want to use it as a lightweight VM system, which I *think* works >> under Linux. I.e. you can run a container of a non-native OS if it is CPU >> compatible w/ the host CPU. > AFAIK this is not the case. The reason Docker is lightweight to begin > with is because: > "Containers running on a single machine all share the same operating > system kernel so they start instantly and make more efficient use of > RAM" See https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths, in the section about: 'FreeBSD Does Not Support Virtualisation' > > As I see it, Docker is nothing more than a copy of the FBSD Jail > system ported to Linux and with some sophistications that make it easy > to manage the images. > > Most of this can be done with FBSD Jails and especially with things like EzJail. > >> As I understand things, that is not feasible w/ >> jails, although I have found some URL's which claim otherwise. Clarification >> on that point would be welcome as well. I have asked before & been told it >> was *NOT* feasible, but maybe things have changed or I am missing something. >> TIA & have a good one. >> > IMO virtualization is not lightweight by definition. So you either > virtualize fully or pseudo-virtualize with chroot-like systems. > In this perspective I see Docker as nothing more than a sophisticated > chroot system just like FBSD Jails, only Linux-based and less mature > ;-) > > Best, > Alejandro Imass Thanks for all info so far. Have a good one :-). -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.